[johnx]

Spider task was accident waiting to happen and as it turned out damn near impossible for a female to suceed at.Corins quite athletic and couldnt do it despite putting every bit of effort she could muster.Turns out Keely needs an operation-I'd sue them though HMs obviously have to sign some kind of release.

[Beso]

corins athletic, lmao.

[Visage]

Don't you just love this 'sue everybody culture' we live in.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by Visage

Don't you just love this 'sue everybody culture' we live in.

I would sue.

She broke her ankle!

[johnx]

Clearly a badly thought out idea.

[Boothy]

Why? She went over on it while running downhill. It could happen to anybody.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by Boothy

Why? She went over on it while running downhill. It could happen to anybody.

They were made to do it by bb as to save themsaelves from the publiv vote. Wasnt as if she was mucking about in the garden and had an accident.

It was an accident waiting to happen.

BB are liable for what happened to her

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Visage

Don't you just love this 'sue everybody culture' we live in.

LOL.. No not really. Drives you mad doesn't it. No one has to take responsibility for themselves, everything has to be "risk assessed" and everythings legislated towards the clumsiest and most stupid people in society.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

They were made to do it by bb as to save themsaelves from the publiv vote. Wasnt as if she was mucking about in the garden and had an accident.

It was an accident waiting to happen.

BB are liable for what happened to her

They were "made to do it"... LOL. They were asked to do it. They wanted to do it... it was a chance to get out of being up for the public vote. It was an accident. And what's more, Endemol's lawyers would have made damn sure there was a clause saying something like, if she takes part in a task she does so at her own risk. They sought medical advice immediately. There's not much else they could have done apart from wrap the silly cow in bubblewrap.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Livia

They were "made to do it"... LOL. They were asked to do it. They wanted to do it... it was a chance to get out of being up for the public vote. It was an accident. And what's more, Endemol's lawyers would have made damn sure there was a clause saying something like, if she takes part in a task she does so at her own risk. They sought medical advice immediately. There's not much else they could have done apart from wrap the silly cow in bubblewrap.

Unfortunately it doesnt work like that. There is such a thing as The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which i believe encompasses the events in the BB house and is therefore open for prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
If BB are found to be negligent in their Risk Assessment and Method Statement (legally binding documents), and in failing to provide the correct Personal Protection Equiptment (PPE) then they can be prosecuted by the HSE regardless of whether Keeley sues or not. And if Keeley is found to have not adhered to any safety advice/rules, she too can be prosecuted.
IMO the footwear used was not suitable for the task in hand as it required traversing over sloping ground and putting various stress and strain on the ankles. To actually fall would and did mean an awkward landing. Proper ankle support was needed not running shoes. Also, the headgear was not suitable as Keeleys clearly came loose and she was fortunate no head injury occured.

The HMs were not forced to do the task, but im not sure how they would be treated/punished if they refuse to take part. And its quite clear that the incentivisation of saving oneself from eviction is there to encourage participation.

[starry]

Yeh I was wondering about the footwear for that task. And there wasn't much room for them to compete together as well. And Keeley really didn't seem tall enough to compete in that also.

[_Seth]

Originally Posted by daniel-lewis-1985

I would sue.

She broke her ankle!

This.

The half pipe looked like it was designed for two people.

[Alpertinator]

Originally Posted by Visage

Don't you just love this 'sue everybody culture' we live in.

You mean 'sue everybody' culture.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Unfortunately it doesnt work like that. There is such a thing as The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which i believe encompasses the events in the BB house and is therefore open for prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
If BB are found to be negligent in their Risk Assessment and Method Statement (legally binding documents), and in failing to provide the correct Personal Protection Equiptment (PPE) then they can be prosecuted by the HSE regardless of whether Keeley sues or not. And if Keeley is found to have not adhered to any safety advice/rules, she too can be prosecuted.
IMO the footwear used was not suitable for the task in hand as it required traversing over sloping ground and putting various stress and strain on the ankles. To actually fall would and did mean an awkward landing. Proper ankle support was needed not running shoes. Also, the headgear was not suitable as Keeleys clearly came loose and she was fortunate no head injury occured.

The HMs were not forced to do the task, but im not sure how they would be treated/punished if they refuse to take part. And its quite clear that the incentivisation of saving oneself from eviction is there to encourage participation.

I know about the Health and Safety at Work Act and while I know it's there for people's protection, half of it is bunkum I reckon. Our way of life is being eroded because some wank-footed arse can't walk a line without tripping over their own feet so we all have to be dressed up in safety gear and hold the handrail. People fall over, people get cuts and bruises, people break bones... it happens. There doesn't always have to be someone to blame or a massive inquiry into what happened.

If Keeley didn't do her chin strap up on the helmet she was given, that's her fault. I'm not an expert, but making them wear safety footwear to run up a little incline like that makes me laugh! It was an accident she fell over! Accidents happen. It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

Hey St G, by the way. Nice to see ya.

[Beastie]

Ooooo the drama!! Do you think BB are sh!tting themselves at the moment? I think Keeley is the type to probably sue.. has she had her OP yet?

[Beastie]

Mmm maybe BB should offer Keeley some form of compensation money.. before this turns out to be NASTY. lol

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

Unfortunately it doesnt work like that. There is such a thing as The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which i believe encompasses the events in the BB house and is therefore open for prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
If BB are found to be negligent in their Risk Assessment and Method Statement (legally binding documents), and in failing to provide the correct Personal Protection Equiptment (PPE) then they can be prosecuted by the HSE regardless of whether Keeley sues or not. And if Keeley is found to have not adhered to any safety advice/rules, she too can be prosecuted.
IMO the footwear used was not suitable for the task in hand as it required traversing over sloping ground and putting various stress and strain on the ankles. To actually fall would and did mean an awkward landing. Proper ankle support was needed not running shoes. Also, the headgear was not suitable as Keeleys clearly came loose and she was fortunate no head injury occured.

The HMs were not forced to do the task, but im not sure how they would be treated/punished if they refuse to take part. And its quite clear that the incentivisation of saving oneself from eviction is there to encourage participation.

Excellent post but will argue the point about footwear with you, ankle support is provided by trainers, what most people take to be the ankle is in fact the lower leg, when talking about ankle support in footwear it's the upper foot area.(That is the site of most "ankle injuries").

As you can see from this diagram (the talus is the ankle bone)



If the housemates had worn boots that encompass the lower leg, ankle and foot, would they have had the flexibility required to maneouvre on the equipment?

As for the headgear, it may not have been fitted or worn correctly, did she read the fitting instructions then fit and wear it according to the manufacturers guidelines properly? If not it is her own fault.

I think the main focus would be on the task itself, would it be considered dangerous to a reasonably fit person.

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Livia

I know about the Health and Safety at Work Act and while I know it's there for people's protection, half of it is bunkum I reckon. Our way of life is being eroded because some wank-footed arse can't walk a line without tripping over their own feet so we all have to be dressed up in safety gear and hold the handrail. People fall over, people get cuts and bruises, people break bones... it happens. There doesn't always have to be someone to blame or a massive inquiry into what happened.

If Keeley didn't do her chin strap up on the helmet she was given, that's her fault. I'm not an expert, but making them wear safety footwear to run up a little incline like that makes me laugh! It was an accident she fell over! Accidents happen. It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

Hey St G, by the way. Nice to see ya.

And nice to C U 2

You wont get any arguments from me that H&S has taken us over, as i have to work in it everyday. One guy, unfortunately, fell off some scaffolding and killed himself due to inproper use, and the company issued a blanket ban on scaffold jobs, buggering up completely my 3 months planning for a specific task. argh.

[daniel-lewis-1985]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Excellent post but will argue the point about footwear with you, ankle support is provided by trainers, what most people take to be the ankle is in fact the lower leg, when talking about ankle support in footwear it's the upper foot area.(That is the site of most "ankle injuries").

As you can see from this diagram (the talus is the ankle bone)



If the housemates had worn boots that encompass the lower leg, ankle and foot, would they have had the flexibility required to maneouvre on the equipment?

As for the headgear, it may not have been fitted or worn correctly, did she read the fitting instructions then fit and wear it according to the manufacturers guidelines properly? If not it is her own fault.

I think the main focus would be on the task itself, would it be considered dangerous to a reasonably fit person.

Can't believe this is what our feet look like under the skin

[StGeorge]

Originally Posted by Shasown

If the housemates had worn boots that encompass the lower leg, ankle and foot, would they have had the flexibility required to maneouvre on the equipment?

As for the headgear, it may not have been fitted or worn correctly, did she read the fitting instructions then fit and wear it according to the manufacturers guidelines properly? If not it is her own fault.

I think the main focus would be on the task itself, would it be considered dangerous to a reasonably fit person.

In my line of work, my contractors have to wear high boots which support all the ankle as there is a very real risk due to walking on uneven ground etc. If the trainers were not deemed suitable due to not protecting the ankle from twisting, and high boots impeded the task, then the task should not take place.
And unfortunately blaming the wearer for not reading the manufacturers instructions does not exempt the issuer (BB) from liability, unless they can prove adequate instruction was given via data sheets and signatures. Being able to say "they were told" doesnt wash nowadays.

And by the way folks....research the Late Breakfast Show incident when a man died duing a task and the government were going to prosecute the BBC.
The BBC thought they had covered all angles...they ended up settling out of court.

[Sticks]

We have also been discussing this here

[billy123]

Originally Posted by thebeast

Mmm maybe BB should offer Keeley some form of compensation money.. before this turns out to be NASTY. lol

haha no unfortunately for the drama seekers out there it doesnt quite work like that bb or c4 wont be arsed either way if and its a huge if there is any compensation to pay they dont pay it the insurance company has to pay her not big brother they wont give two hoots either way it doesnt cost bb or c4 a penny thats what insurance is for
not 1 single penny but that doesnt fit with the drama queens that watch bb so it gets turned into a fake drama

[Sticks]

Originally Posted by bobnot

haha no unfortunately for the drama seekers out there it doesnt quite work like that bb or c4 wont be arsed either way if and its a huge if there is any compensation to pay they dont pay it the insurance company has to pay her not big brother they wont give two hoots either way it doesnt cost bb or c4 a penny thats what insurance is for
not 1 single penny but that doesnt fit with the drama queens that watch bb so it gets turned into a fake drama

Response here

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by StGeorge

In my line of work, my contractors have to wear high boots which support all the ankle as there is a very real risk due to walking on uneven ground etc. If the trainers were not deemed suitable due to not protecting the ankle from twisting, and high boots impeded the task, then the task should not take place.
And unfortunately blaming the wearer for not reading the manufacturers instructions does not exempt the issuer (BB) from liability, unless they can prove adequate instruction was given via data sheets and signatures. Being able to say "they were told" doesnt wash nowadays.

And by the way folks....research the Late Breakfast Show incident when a man died duing a task and the government were going to prosecute the BBC.
The BBC thought they had covered all angles...they ended up settling out of court.

Yes I can appreciate that contractors have to wear high boots for uneven ground, however you are talking about the ground surface being that of a building site. A slight difference to the surface they were required to do the task on, wouldnt you admit?

Trainers would have provided adequate ankle support and gripping for the task.

Yes I admit that saying "they were told" doesnt wash in H&S, however a line has to be drawn somewhere between the Employer and the Employees responsibilities under H&S. if they were shown how to wear them and instructed to wear them properly periodically etc, then that should suffice otherwise you get to the state were nothing would be done because people were having to stop to submit to checks. Most cases like this are decided on "what is reasonable to expect....".

Yeah I remember the car stunt that effectively ended Edmonds' career at the time. Why did we let him back? Since then TV has tightened up its safety guidelines etc. And insurance

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Visage

Don't you just love this 'sue everybody culture' we live in.

Pathetic, isnt it...